Troy Aikman made the Pro Football Hall of Fame by lobbing footballs. His newest hobby, apparently, is lobbing grenades.
Did you hear the Fox broadcaster’s late-game comment as Minnesota finished off the Packers on Sunday? You’ll be excused for missing it. Maybe you’d already thrown your Brett Favre voodoo bobblehead through the television. Or perhaps you’d simply curled into fetal position for a nice, long, depressive sulk.
But what Aikman said near the end of Favre’s latest cold dish of vengeance was indeed noteworthy. Because Aikman insinuated that the real reason for Favre’s 2008 retirement soap opera was simple.
Favre just didn’t want to be a Packer anymore.
While you digest that little nugget of heresy, I’ve already looked up the answer to your first question. Aikman suffered his career-ending concussion on Dec. 10, 2000, so yes, we’ll assume he’s fully recovered. That, combined with the fact that he was on national TV, indicates the man probably meant what he said.
Favre wanting away from the Packers before the Summer of Favre? Wanting no part of Green Bay’s 2008 season all along? How in the name of Greta Van Susteren can that possibly be? What about all those tears at the big retirement press conference? What about Favre famously jetting to Green Bay for training camp, only to be unceremoniously locked out? It doesn’t make any sense, right?
Well, it does if you’re Andrew Brandt.
You may remember Brandt as a former Packers vice president. But his nine-year tenure in Green Bay ended in 2008, and he now runs the National Football Post, for which he also writes a column.
Brandt obviously wasn’t curled up in the fetal position Sunday, because he picked up on Aikman’s brief comment, too. Moreover, Brandt proceeded to lend it support. Not because of his faith in Aikman’s concussion specialists, but because of his faith in Aikman’s credibility.
Brandt explains that Favre has long embraced his pregame meetings with TV analysts and had no problem sharing stories during them. “So if Aikman said something enlightening about Favre, which he did,” writes Brandt, “it came from Favre on Saturday night in the Vikings hotel, with Brett ensconced in a production meeting as always, talking football with the broadcast team.”
Interesting. Not proof, of course, but definitely a well-informed inference. Hmm… maybe there is something to Aikman’s Theory of Favre-ativity. So let’s go with it a bit.
Why would Favre want out? Why would the King not only want to abdicate his throne, but be so anxious to turn against his loyal subjects by going to Minnesota, his preferred destination from the start?
The obvious answer is his rift with Packers General Manager Ted Thompson. It’s nothing new. The whole Thompson vs. Favre deathmatch has been rehashed and replayed ad nauseum (and we like to imagine it looked something like this.) But if we’re to believe Aikman, doesn’t there have to be more to it than Favre feeling disrespected by Thompson?
Well maybe there was.
What if Favre simply didn’t believe in the Packers anymore?
Look, Favre knew he was running out of time to crown his storied career with another Super Bowl. What if he just didn’t think he’d reach that goal with the Packers, but was positive it could be done with the Vikings?
At first blush, it seems like an odd concept, considering Green Bay was a Favrian interception away from Super Bowl XLII. But the 6-10 record n 2008, as well as this season’s 4-3 start, backs the argument that the Packers would soon trend downward. And nobody would’ve had more insight into Green Bay’s offensive line woes than Favre himself.
On top of that, Favre would’ve known there wasn’t a fast fix on Green Bay’s horizon. Thompson was firmly married to the idea of relying heavily on the draft, preferring young players with upside over free agency and proven veterans. Exhibits A and B: Thompson’s failure to bring in future Hall of Famers Randy Moss and Tony Gonzalez for, respectively, fourth-round and second-round draft picks.
Meanwhile, Favre knew that Minnesota had everything lined up for a Super Bowl run except for a quarterback. He could saunter over to a great defense, a stout offensive line and the best running back in the game. Heck, he could even play in a dome and avoid that Frosty the Snowman act that was so troublesome in the 2007 NFC Championship Game. Yes, in Minnesota, it was all on a silver platter for him. Favre just had flag down the waiter.
So if Favre really wanted out, why put everyone through such a circus? Why didn’t he just say he wanted out?
Because he couldn’t. Favre simply could not be perceived as the one giving up on the Packers. It was far better, from Favre’s point of view, if the perception was reversed. For Favre to maintain that legendary status, the Packers had to be giving up on him. That way, he could add martyr to his resume.
Cue the soap opera music.
And there you have it. One plausible, if oversimplified, exposition of Aikman’s Theory of Favre-ativity. Maybe there are others, but we’ll leave those to the folks at MIT and CERN.
So is Aikman right? Very few people know the truth, and don’t expect them to be talking anytime soon. But when the story eventually comes out, one thing’s for sure.
Oliver Stone simply has to direct the movie.
No ballgame to watch? No problem. Check out our new TV Guru column to get the lowdown on your remote control options.
Feel free to follow me on Twitter, where I tweet as howiemag. And tune in every Tuesday morning at 6:25 when I join Doug Russell and Mike Wickett on SportsRadio 1250 AM for Tuesdays with Howie. You can also find the segments in their Audio Vault. Finally, I’ll join Mitch Teich on WUWM’s “Lake Effect” Thursday at 10 a.m. and again at 11 p.m.
